draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-02.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt 
Network Working Group L. Iannone Network Working Group L. Iannone
Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech
Intended status: Informational D. Lewis Intended status: Informational D. Lewis
Expires: October 26, 2012 D. Meyer Expires: May 11, 2013 Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Meyer
Brocade
V. Fuller V. Fuller
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
April 24, 2012 November 7, 2012
LISP EID Block LISP EID Block
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-02.txt draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt
Abstract Abstract
This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use
with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be
used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint
identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier)
addressing space. addressing space.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 26, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 11, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document directs the IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use This document directs the IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use
with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [I-D.ietf-lisp]), with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [I-D.ietf-lisp]),
LISP Map Server ([I-D.ietf-lisp-ms]), LISP Alternative Topology LISP Map Server ([I-D.ietf-lisp-ms]), LISP Alternative Topology
(LISP+ALT - [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt]) (or other) mapping system, and LISP (LISP+ALT - [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt]) (or other) mapping system, and LISP
Interworking ([I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking]). Interworking ([I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking]).
This block will be used as global Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space This block will be used as global Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space
(Section 3). (Section 2).
3. Definition of Terms 2. Definition of Terms
LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network
elements. This section provides high-level definitions of the LISP elements. This section provides high-level definitions of the LISP
name spaces and network elements and as such, it MUST NOT be name spaces and network elements and as such, it must not be
considered as an authoritative source. The reference to the considered as an authoritative source. The reference to the
authoritative document for each term is included in every term authoritative document for each term is included in every term
description. description.
Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP
and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system. and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system.
LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that
are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that
reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate
skipping to change at page 5, line 11 skipping to change at page 5, line 7
Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on
behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at
LISP sites. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking] for more details. LISP sites. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking] for more details.
Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on
behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non- behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non-
LISP sites. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking] for more details. LISP sites. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking] for more details.
Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID- Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID-
to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an
ETR). A Map-Server publishes these mappings in the distributed ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed
mapping system. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms] for more details. mapping system. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms] for more details.
Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts
LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly
determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of
the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is
immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map-Resolver finds the immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the
appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed
mapping database system. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms] for more details. mapping database system. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms] for more details.
The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay
network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to
carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides
a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID- a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID-
prefix. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt] for more details. prefix. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt] for more details.
skipping to change at page 5, line 47 skipping to change at page 5, line 43
EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it
learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the
logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of
LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding
infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and
Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the
same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating) same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating)
destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe
packet). See [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt] for more details. packet). See [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt] for more details.
4. Rationale and Intent 3. Rationale and Intent
With the current specifications, if an ITR is sending to all types of With the current specifications, if an ITR is sending to all types of
destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP destinations not in destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP destinations not in
the IPv6 EID Block, and LISP destinations in the IPv6 EID Block) the the IPv6 EID Block, and LISP destinations in the IPv6 EID Block) the
only way to understand whether or not to encapsulate the traffic is only way to understand whether or not to encapsulate the traffic is
to perform a cache lookup and, in case of cache-miss, send a Map- to perform a cache lookup and, in case of cache-miss, send a Map-
Request to the mapping system. In the meanwhile, packets can be Request to the mapping system. In the meanwhile, packets can be
dropped. dropped.
By defining an IPv6 EID Block is possible to configure the router so By defining an IPv6 EID Block is possible to configure the router so
to natively forward all packets that have not a destination address to natively forward all packets that have not a destination address
in the block, without performing any lookup whatsoever. This will in the block, without performing any lookup whatsoever. This will
give a tighter control over the traffic in the initial experimental give a tighter control over the traffic in the initial experimental
phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment. phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment.
The EID Block will be used only at configuration level, it is The EID Block will be used only at configuration level, it is
RECOMMENDED not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID Block in the recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID Block in the
router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may
want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is
not in the IPv6 EID Block. not in the IPv6 EID Block.
5. Expected use 4. Expected use
Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID
Block. Such prefix will be used for routing and endpoint Block. Such prefix will be used for routing and endpoint
identification inside the site requesting it. Mappings related to identification inside the site requesting it. Mappings related to
such prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the such prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the
mapping system in use or registered to one or more Map-Server(s). mapping system in use or registered to one or more Map Server(s).
Too guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet the prefix could Too guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet the prefix could
be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more
PITR(s), possibly as part of a larger prefix, aggregating several PITR(s), possibly as part of a larger prefix, aggregating several
prefixes of several sites. prefixes of several sites.
6. Block Dimension 5. Block Dimension
The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /16 The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /16
prefix out of a /12 block which is asked to remain reserved for prefix out of a /12 block which is asked to remain reserved for
future use as EID space. The reason of such consensus is manifold: future use as EID space. The reason of such consensus is manifold:
o A /16 prefix is sufficiently large to cover initial allocation and o The working group agreed that /16 prefix is sufficiently large to
requests for prefixes in the EID space in the next few years for cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID
very large-scale experimentation and deployment. As a comparison space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation
is worth to mention that the current LISP Beta Network ([BETA]) is and deployment.
using a /32 prefix, hence a /16 should be sufficiently large to
accommodate growth in the near future. o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta
Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites
using a /48 sub prefix. Hence, a /16 prefix looks as sufficiently
large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for
interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs space in
the new /16 prefix.
o A /16 prefix is sufficiently large to only allow deployment of
independent (commercial) LISP enabled networks by third parties,
but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment.
o The /16 size and alignment allows the use to current policies to
allocate and distribute prefixes out of this space, without the
need to introduce any new specific address management policy.
o The proposed alignment provides as well a natural support for DNS. o The proposed alignment provides as well a natural support for DNS.
In particular, reverse DNS for IPv6 in the special ip6.arpa domain In particular, reverse DNS for IPv6 in the special ip6.arpa domain
is represented as sequence of nibbles. A different alignment is represented as sequence of nibbles. A different alignment
would force to a binary representation. would force to a binary representation.
7. Action Plan o The use of a /16 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix
allocation for tunnelling protocols ([RFC3056]) and is considered
a useful practice ([RFC3692]).
6. Action Plan
This document requests IANA to initially allocate a /16 prefix out of This document requests IANA to initially allocate a /16 prefix out of
the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID
Separation protocol). It is suggested to IANA to temporarily avoid Separation protocol). It is suggested to IANA to temporarily avoid
allocating any other address block the same /12 prefix the EID /16 allocating any other address block the same /12 prefix the EID /16
prefix belongs to. This is to accommodate future requests of EID prefix belongs to. This is to accommodate future requests of EID
space without fragmenting the EID addressing space. This will also space without fragmenting the EID addressing space. This will also
help from an operational point of view, since it will be sufficient help from an operational point of view, since it will be sufficient
to change the subnet mask length in existing deployments. to change the subnet mask length in existing deployments.
If in the future there will be need for a larger EID Block the If in the future there will be need for a larger EID Block the
address space adjacent the EID Block could be allocate by IANA address space adjacent the EID Block could be allocate by IANA
according to the current policies. according to the current policies.
8. Routing Considerations 7. Routing Considerations
In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP
sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates of the IPv6 EID Block could sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates of the IPv6 EID Block could
be deployed. By doing so, PITRs will attract traffic destined to be deployed. By doing so, PITRs will attract traffic destined to
LISP sites in order to encapsulate and forward it toward the specific LISP sites in order to encapsulate and forward it toward the specific
destination LISP site. Routers in the Legacy Internet MUST treat destination LISP site. Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat
announcements of prefixes from the IPv6 EID Block as normal announcements of prefixes from the IPv6 EID Block as normal
announcements, applying best current practice for traffic engineering announcements, applying best current practice for traffic engineering
and security. and security.
Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In
particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain, particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain,
used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any
specific LISP functionality but MUST be able to route traffic using specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using
addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. addresses in the IPv6 EID Block.
For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP
element, MUST NOT include any special handling code or hardware for element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for
addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. In particular, it is RECOMMENDED addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. In particular, it is recommended
that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses
in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication
between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra- between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra-
domain connectivity. domain connectivity.
9. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP
architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture.
10. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers. Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.
Thanks to Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker, all Thanks to Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker, all
made insightful comments on early versions of this draft. made insightful comments on early versions of this draft.
11. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This document instructs the IANA to assign a /16 IPv6 prefix for use This document instructs the IANA to assign a /16 IPv6 prefix for use
as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as
outlined in [RFC5226]. During the discussion related to this outlined in [RFC5226]. During the discussion related to this
document, the LISP Working Group agreed in suggesting to IANA to document, the LISP Working Group agreed in suggesting to IANA to
reserve adjacent addressing space for future use as EID space if reserve adjacent addressing space for future use as EID space if
needs come. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], such space needs come. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], such space
will be assigned only upon IETF Consensus. This document does not will be assigned only upon IETF Review. This document does not
specify any specific value for the requested address block. specify any specific value for the requested address block.
12. References 11. References
12.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp] [I-D.ietf-lisp]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
draft-ietf-lisp-22 (work in progress), February 2012. draft-ietf-lisp-23 (work in progress), May 2012.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-alt] [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP
Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT)", draft-ietf-lisp-alt-10 Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT)", draft-ietf-lisp-alt-10
(work in progress), December 2011. (work in progress), December 2011.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking] [I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking]
Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6", "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6",
draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-06 (work in progress), draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-06 (work in progress),
March 2012. March 2012.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ms] [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms]
Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Map Server Interface", Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Map Server Interface",
draft-ietf-lisp-ms-16 (work in progress), March 2012. draft-ietf-lisp-ms-16 (work in progress), March 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
12.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net", 2008-2011. [BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net", 2008-2011.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
Appendix A. Document Change Log Appendix A. Document Change Log
Version 03 Posted November 2012.
o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B.
Haberman.
o Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B.
Haberman.
o Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque
Gagliano.
o Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with
"Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent
with [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms]. Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out
the issue.
Version 02 Posted April 2012. Version 02 Posted April 2012.
o Fixed typos, nits, references. o Fixed typos, nits, references.
o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies. o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies.
Version 01 Posted October 2011. Version 01 Posted October 2011.
o Added Section 6. o Added Section 5.
Version 00 Posted July 2011. Version 00 Posted July 2011.
o Updated section "IANA Considerations" o Updated section "IANA Considerations"
o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block
allocation is useful. allocation is useful.
o Added section "Expected Use" explaining how sites can request and o Added section "Expected Use" explaining how sites can request and
use a prefix in the IPv6 EID Block. use a prefix in the IPv6 EID Block.
skipping to change at page 10, line 10 skipping to change at page 10, line 39
o Added the present section to keep track of changes. o Added the present section to keep track of changes.
o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt. o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Luigi Iannone Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech Telecom ParisTech
Email: ggx@gigix.net Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr
Darrel Lewis Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: darlewis@cisco.com Email: darlewis@cisco.com
David Meyer David Meyer
Cisco Systems, Inc. Brocade
Email: dmm@cisco.com Email: dmm@1-4-5.net
Vince Fuller Vince Fuller
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: vaf@cisco.com Email: vaf@cisco.com
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
65 lines changed or deleted 95 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/